This is 's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following 's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
"Now that most of us read most things electronically" Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Also, properly done PDFs can easily accommodate internal hyperlinks to the endnotes and back to the source in the text.
(And of course it's also startling to read shortly after that philosophy does *not* exhibit exponential growth.)
The fibonacci sequence exhibits exponential growth, so it's somewhat astounding to hear that progress in philosophy emulates it, and that it's not enough.
"My experience is that Radiohead are extremely hard to cover." I dunno, I think all of these are successful: On the _The Bends_ tip, I thought it was a cliché of Radiohead fandom to favor it, or at least to favor it over _OK Computer_.
Myhrvold may not have been out to make money on Modernist Cuisine, but if the Forbes writer quoted in the Wikipedia article on the books is right to claim that they're '"this decade’s most influential work about food" and also likely the most profitable set of books in the genre in recent years', he seems to have done so regardless.
Haiku shmaiku, why not a double dactyl? Higgledy piggledy Der Allzermalmende Made room for faith by de- Stroying the schools: Questions pertaining to Transcendentalities Can't be decided, by Wise men or fools.
"This is exactly why a proof cannot be a one-step argument going directly from premises to conclusion (which is, in effect, a necessarily truth-preserving move in the case of true theorems): a proof spells out the intermediate steps, which must be individually perspicuous and explanatory – and yes, also necessarily truth-preserving." I've seen proofs that contain only one line: "Proof: by structural induction on e. □". Presumably they are basic and obvious enough for their audience that just saying "do it like this" is perspicuous and explanatory. But by that point what blocks "Proof: trivial. □"? (Or is saying "trivial" enough?)
How? What's the mechanism? The process was already non-blind.
Are London taxi drivers savants? ISTR reading that acquiring The Knowledge has repercussions elsewhere in their lives.
I suppose that in many cases you suppose that p and end up being forced to conclude that ¬p, rather than being forced to conclude that ¬q, where q is something else. But the vehicle is something independently known. E.g. to prove that all prime numbers are congruent to either one or five mod six, one step might be: Suppose that p is prime, and that p is congruent to four mod six. Then there exists a number n such that 6n+4 = p. This may also be written as 2(3n+2) = p. What do we say now? That therefore p is composite, hence not prime, and prime? Or that this contradicts something we independently know, namely that no prime number is composite? This seems quite parallel with Jacovides' examples. You can find more in a similar spirit by searching for "QED" along with "if that were true", e.g. here: """ robert: An organism constructed according to a complicated mathematical formula is evident of intelligence. rex: If that were true, then everything would be designed, because nearly everything is constructed according to complicated mathematical formulas. That's what physics and chemistry are. Do you think that humans "created" mathematics? """ These seem to be ordinary enough people engaged in reductio-style argumentation. (Not necessarily good argumentation!) Or from the Straight Dope message boards: """ I read an article in a computer magazine the other day which said american cabling also could not deliver enough amps along with (because of?) the low voltage power design so a computer with two high end video cards, an overclocked processor etc would need two separate plugs into the wall to provide the wattage required. Is this true? Steve Q.E.D. 01-30-2007, 08:01 PM Is this true? No, not even close. If that were true, we wouldn't be able to use toasters or hair driers, since these can draw upwards of 1000 watts. """ Which one could continue: We can use toasters. So we can and can't use toasters. So ⊥. Hence it must be false. We're more apt to continue it simply, "but we can, so it must be false".
"It seems the point is to show that what follows from the supposition is something that contradicts what we independently know (in the 1st example, that not all white people are successful), in order to refute the supposition." I independently know that ¬⊥, don't I? Or, in general, that ¬(some absurdity).
Their cardinality will hopefully equal the cardinality of the null set, no?
Given that each volume of the LOTR is on the order of (if not larger than) the Hobbit, it does seem like a bizarre decision.
Musicologists argue that most of that manuscript is actually written by Dowland himself (he signed his name on a few of the pieces), and that it probably represents the written accounts of improvisations he played What of it, though? That doesn't mean that his intention was that later performers get from the notes on the page to the improvisation as he played it. The idea of Werktreue that puts a premium on getting at the composer's "ineffable intentions" (and led to lots of notational devices aimed at making them effable) is a modern one.
"But it's considerably more favorable to Kitcher's book than the quoted excerpt suggests" As, indeed, the very next sentence indicates! "What we get instead is a broad-ranging discussion with a sort of architectural coherence in which the pieces fit together well and reinforce one another." That seems like a more than fair trade to me.
All this makes me think that there's really no need for each new non-Springer/Eslevier/etc. journal to roll its own solution. (Or its own LaTeX class.) One can easily imagine something like typepad or wordpress for newly founded otherwise independent journals: for a (modest!) fee, one gets webspace with some open-source journal management software installed and running, automated whatevers, etc. There's no need for all that to cost $800/year.
I wonder how much of that expense (especially in terms of start-up costs) could be foregone, if one wanted to be really austere/penurious/stiffly moralistic about the purpose of a journal. Suppose, for instance, one thought that the point of a journal in this Day and Age was largely in certifying what's published; the good the journal does is almost exhausted by the screening and stamping for quality done by the editors and the referees. Then one could ask: what need for a journal design, pretty typesetting, or even, at the extreme, a house style? One would still want indexing and searching (at least by author/title/abstract/keywords), presumably, but that can be done with relatively simple tools. Phil Imprint has an attractive website, and its papers are attractively formatted, but my best guess as to how they Did It was that it was started by prominent philosophers and other prominent philosophers are on its board, and their first publications were of high quality. The prettiness wasn't the important thing. So you could think: all you really need is an editorial workflow, an eye-catching board, good referees, and a simple interface to something like John MacFarlane's cloudlib, in which the files are stored in whatever form they had when they were accepted. Why do they need stylistic conformity with one another? Even now, if I'm not on a campus network and I'm searching for an article which I just want to read (not necessarily yet to cite, so pagination doesn't matter), I'm perfectly happy to download a Word document off the author's website, rather than signing into to a proxy (or whatever) so that I can download the otherwise formatted and canonically paginated version from a journal's website. An online-only journal needn't emulate every aspect of a print journal. It could say: what we do is verify the worthiness to the attention of other philosophers of your paper via peer review, and offer a canonical location for and version of that paper. That wouldn't eliminate startup costs or maintenance costs entirely, but it would lessen them.
"an agreement designating the work as a work made for hire must be signed, or at least formed (meaning that both parties understood), prior to the creation of the work." I assume this means that it has to happen on a per-work basis? That is: as a result of having read these posts on New APPS, I now understand that OUP would try to have any work I submitted to them classified as a work for hire, and I understand that in advance of any actual dealings with them. I would hope that that general understanding of mine isn't sufficient, but I wouldn't want to bet on it.
"But what about job seekers? They are mostly also teachers. If departments go on interviewing at the APA, those people will be in quite a predicament." Surely not. After all, the heads of the departments in which they teach will merely reflect, "well, that's the way it is when you hire people on short-term contracts—they have to start looking for jobs in the middle of their term." (Similar stuff already happens with flyouts.) They will then put even more pressure on their deans to allow them more tenure lines. So you see, this decision really will make for the best of all possible worlds.
There's some stuff about learning in both Theoretical Biology and "A Stroll through the Worlds of Animals and Men", but none of it really seems sufficient to get anything like a contribution to consciousness, which seems to be something that basically doesn't exist for von Uexküll. Not really surprising when the story you give seems intended to work with only minor modification for everything from paramecia to humans—in fact, if I remember correctly, the story about learning in humans is basically the same as the story about training in dogs. (I might well not since it's been a long time since I looked at any of this stuff.) This is something that Heidegger criticizes him for in The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics, the second half of which contains a surprising amount of information about how bees find their way back to the hive.
Ben Wolfson added a favorite at Adventures in the Pointless Forest
Jan 19, 2011
Ben Wolfson is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 15, 2010
A previous comment to similar effect seems to be trapped in the spam queue, presumably owing to a surfeit of links, but: (a) it doesn't really make sense to say that it makes sense for a venue to have multi-band bills because it's not primarily a jazz venue. There are plenty of places I can think of that aren't primarily jazz venues but which have single-artist/band bills, and I don't see why having other bills with multiple bands somehow makes it make sense for the same venue to keep that practice up when they've got jazzers on the bill. (b) Contrariwise, the vast majority of the jazz/improv concerts I attend do have multiple-group bills, the exceptions being the venues that almost never do that no matter who's playing and occasional single-entry bills at venues—including those that are primarily or exclusively jazz and improv-oriented—that usually do multi-entry bills. I was just at one, in fact. "Your standard jazz show" with two sets by the same performers has been comparatively rarer. This may be a function of the fact that I go to cheapo shows at mostly rinky-dink venues, but presumably isn't solely that because there are lots of equally rinky-dink (sorry, Hungry Brain!) places in Chicago that hew more closely to the two-set model. NYC I can't speak to, but the SIMM Series, the Luggage Store Gallery Series, 21 Grand, Blue Six, the free (as in costless) jazz nights at the Uptown and the Make-Out Room, concerts at Scott Looney's house, and Flux 53 have, in the main, multi-artist bills. (c) It's still true that even in those cases there isn't really an opener/headliner dynamic, even when the person/group that plays last is much more famous than those who play first, partly because, let's face it, John Butcher is more famous than Damon Smith, but he ain't that famous. Ornette Coleman may have been able to take The Bad Plus touring with him, and probably The Bad Plus could do something similar for another group, but there just aren't enough big draws for that dynamic to happen even if groups regularly played together. (As they do!) But, aside from the fact that it would be swell if there were more groups that drew lots of people, I don't really see what the problem here is. You go see one person/group, you'll hear some others. The opener/headliner dynamic can only exist where one group can actually headline. But if I say "let's see Blue Cranes tonight", and get someone to go along, they'll still also hear Marches (or whatever, I believe that was the bill the last time the Blue Cranes were here). And potentially be surprised. These seem like orthogonal issues. (d) Likewise, whether or not there's something like CMJ for jazz probably only makes sense in the context of New York. There's nothing like CMJ for rock in lots of places. And there are plenty of jazz festivals, even forward-looking jazz festivals, about. One's taking place in just a few days: <>. Wish I could go; I'd probably be surprised. There's Other Minds in SF. There are actually multiple such things in SF and Chicago, admittedly on a smaller scale than CMJ or SXSW, but hey, it's a significantly smaller scene. Surely—surely!—there exist like shit in nyc.